taoism

[system]

"solur taoism and taiji

Taoism is not about burning incense and making fruit offerings, it is simply a philosohpy and Taiji is based on part of this philosophy. The religious sect of Taoism is far from its original inetent as just a way in seeing things. Real taoism is far from religion. "

"Jon Wayne Taylor

The real question si what does singing prayers and burning incense have to do with Taoism."

Not to beat a dead horse, but…Ø

solur-
How can you say that religious Taoism is far from its original intent? Did you ask a Taoist? Is Catholicism not Christianity because you don’t think it fits Jesus’s teachings? I find statements like this to be arrogant. Go to a Taoist temple. Watch respectfully as people pray and make offerings. Ask politely if you have questions about their religion. But don’t dare say that “Real Taoism is far from religion”. You are going to tell an old Chinese grandma that shes been doing it wrong for the last 80 years? That her mother taught her wrong, that you know how her religion is suposed to work?

Taoism cannot be reduced to the Tao Te Ching. The Taoist cannon contains hundreds of works, few of which have ever been translated. It is practiced by millions of people world wide for thousands of years. Don’t pretend that you can discredit these people because you think you know better. Although the Tao Te Ching is important to Taoism, there is a lot more to the story. Again, go to Taiwan, go to a Joss House in your local Chinatown, go to Beijing, see real Taoism in action, you might feel more informed.

JWT-
Taoists go to church just like you do to sing prayers and make offerings. Why do you find this strange? It has everything to do with Taoism.

The real question is, why do a bunch of Americans reading the Tao Te Ching and practicing martial arts think they know a damn thing about someone else’s religion?

-Jesss

[system]

Makes me miss my religious discussion forum…

It all depends on how you define Daoism. There was certainly in China, even before Lau Tsu, a Daoist movement (perhaps not by that name) much as there has been a spiritulist movement in Euro/American society for the past 150 years or so.

Now, a guy (Lau Tsu) wrote a book (or two) defining specifically his interpretation of the Daoist principles.

Like Christian spiritulists (oddly enough, expressly forbidden in the bible), modern Daoists are practicing a religion of mixed origins (most of them). They are taking the Daoist movement, Confusism, aspects of Buddism, and typically indigenous Chinese religious beliefs and blending them together, much the way many modern Christians have blended Jewish, original Christian (actually called “followers of the Way”), Roman, and Nordic religious practices mixed with smatterings of spiritulism, neo-spiritulism, and often evangelism.

On the one hand you are correct. They are christians, and our 80 year old woman is a Daoist. And on the other hand, both are pretty far removed from the foundations of the religion.

I tend to discuss the concept of the Dao, and the modern religion Daoism, seperately. There is much in the Dao that is echoed in Taiji.

[system]

In my opinion “Daoist” may be called only someone that walks the Dao.
There are thousands of “Daoists” that just go to the church and make offerings but have nothing to do with the inner aspects of Daoism.
Can they be called Daoists?

Lie Che was able to avoid walking (by flying) but he was still not independed (depended on wind)

All things return to it as to their home, but it does not lord it over them.
Thus it may be called “The Great”

[system]

“Can they be called Daoists?”

Hi gentlemen, thanks for your comments.

If I may I would like to address your statments.

Jerry-
You have experience in this type of debate. I find your reasoning to be well thought out. It is true that modern religions stray far from their original foundations and founders. Certainly this is true among the “Great Religions” like Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Christianity, etc..

However, this is the same position believers have always been in, every religion is built on the foundation of the ones before, whether Lao Tzu, Buddha or Jesus. Thus, I don’t see how you can

“discuss the concept of the Dao, and the modern religion Daoism, seperately”

without doing insult to Daoism & the Dao. One can seperate concepts out of a particular religion, (say discussing Karma as a concept), but you cannot view them outside of their greater context, and originating tradition. One can theorize all day about Tao, or Holy Spirit, but what good are those concepts outside of the living breathing practicioners of these religions. They live it every day, we only speak of it. Without Daoism there is no Dao. They came up with it in the first place!

In terms of martial arts, I think you are quite correct: “There is much in the Dao that is echoed in Taiji”

However, Internal Flow is way off base.

      "In my opinion "Daoist" may be called only someone that walks the Dao."

No, a Daoist is someone who is a member of the Daoist religion. A Christian is someone who is a member of the Christian religion. You cant just read a few pages of the New Testament or the Tao De Ching and the claim to be a member. This is superficial, and does violence to the truth and uniqueness of great religious traditions.

" There are thousands of “Daoists” that just go to the church and make offerings but have nothing to do with the inner aspects of Daoism. Can they be called Daoists?"

How can they not? They go to the Joss house, they pray to the Immortals, they respect their ancestors. Are you saying that the Orthodox or Catholics in your town are not Christians??? Members of a religion are sincere in their practice, and live the best they can by the teachings. Inner Taoism is a totally way out fringe within the Taoist religion. Just because I am not a Trappist monk giving up every posession and praying 12 hours a day, I am not a Chrisitan?

In other words, a religion is much more than just its most hardcore adherents. A Buddhist does not have to be a Lama, a Jew doesn’t have to be a Rabbi. Why do Taoists have to be Alchemical, Tao Te Ching spouting free spirit hippies?

Just because you think you are a Taoist, does that make you one? Go ask a Taoist priest, someone who actually belongs to the religion, and didn’t just read about it.

My essential argument is this: Before claiming to be a part of a religion, go ask that religion first. They might be happy to have you!

-Jess

∑

[system]

-I didnt claim that i am a Daoist.
-I have read many ancient Daoist books and not only Tao Teh Ching.
-You must be sure that i will go there when i can (i am only 16 so i cannot do that yet)
And i didnt say that they are not Daoists , i just asked to see the answers

All things return to it as to their home, but it does not lord it over them.
Thus it may be called “The Great”

[system]

Remember guys that Taoism is divided into philosophical Taoism and religious Taoism. It seems people are getting one mixed with the other. Of course, they share a lot of things, but they aren’t quite the same.

Religious Taoism is definately about “burning incense and saying prayers” (to put it that way).

Philosophical Taoism, which I’d bet is much more familiar to the western person, is just that : philosophical.

I think it was on another thread that it was said that TCC is Taoist, and someone commented that it couldn’t be since Taoism about “burning incense” and all.

TCC is definately a martial art that embodies Taoist philosophical principles. Personally, I would definately think saying “it’s (philosophical) Taoism” in action to be correct.

I’d say the same about Wing Tsun, too, BTW.

[system]

Just as we cannot reasonably call the Daoists who practice ancestor worship “not Daoists”, neither is it fair to say we are not Daoists if we don’t.

Look at the Reformation movement in Chirstianity for a parallel. What came out of that were a bunch of people, not practing Catholosism, but still Christian.

The upside of “Christian” in this context is that, unlike “Daoist” I have a very funcitonal and working definition.

I do still assert that we can talk about “Core Christianity”, “The teachings of Jesus” or “Christian Religions” as seperate, though overlapping issues.

Similarly, there are the core concepts of the Dao (bending reed, uncarved block, etc). There are the teachings of LauTzu. And there are the modern Daoists, ranging from Atheist Daoists to Daoists concerned with white magic vs dark magic.

I promise not to discredit 80-year-old Chinese women with inscense. Can we also accept that 30-year old Americans without it can be Daoist too?

I hope so, it’s been my declared religion for a decade.

[system]

If Yin/Yang are the core of Taoism, would it not be correct to say that “philosophical” Taoism and “Theistic” (I prefer that term to “religous” because you can be religous about anything.. religon is repetitive action) Taoism are the balance with some of one in the other, making a greater whole?

I’ve read so many taoist texts that my mind is leaking out my ears, it’s really quite confussing at times. Frankly, I have distilled down to 2 texts.. I-Ching and The Tao of Pooh. Obviously my leanings are towards the “philosophical” rather than “theistic”

[system]

Limited vocabulary and dual concepts…

First, let me respectfully salute my elders as I am new to this forum. I always welcome your wise comments.

To echoe Daredevil’s words, it seems that people are using the same vocabulary to designate two connected but different ideas. When we speak of religion, may it be Taoism, Christianity, or others, there are really two different ideas. One is the codified, structured religion each with their own set of rituals, sacred texts, etc. And the other idea is the philosophical, scholarly religion each with their own cosmology, metaphysical theories, etc. Of course those two ideas are connected as the scholarly religion explains and rationalizes the structured religion. And in return, the structured religion gives drive and influence to the scholarly religion. But they are not to be confused for the same as they have very different purposes.

For example, from the millions of roman catholics who go to mass on Sunday, only a small fraction of them have actually read and reflected on the writings of those most responsible for what they “do” (rituals, prayers, commandments) and how their religion is organized ie St-Thomas d’Aquinas, St-Augustine, St-Anselme, etc. In the same way, of all the old Chinese grandmas who have been practicing Taoism their whole lives based on their mother’s teachings and their local Taoist priest, only a small fraction of them have actually read and reflected on the Taoist canon and its commentators. But it would be false to say that those practicing the religion are not “real” or “true”.

So, in reality, Taoism IS “…about burning incense and making fruit offerings”. But it is also just as much a unique philosophy unlike any others on which the principles of tai chi are based upon. In the same way, it is true to say that the structured religion of Taoism has much evolved throughout the years. But so have the philosophical ideas evolved since the first writings.

The problem arose in the following sentence: “The religious sect of Taoism is far from its original intent as just a way in seeing things”. It is the first instance where the two ideas are being compared when they are not comparable as they are different. You can compare “the religious sect of Taoism” with the highly structured religion of Catholicism. You can compare the sacred texts of taoism which define and explain its philosophy with the bible which contains the original core of judeo-christian religions’ philosophy.

Yet again, a beautiful example of the confusing dual yet single nature of tao.
Similar but not the same.
United by the same word but separated by meaning.

ST

Surrounded by chaos, the true taoist laughs…

[system]

Maybe philosophical taoism is not the proper word. What about practical? Maybe both.

All things return to it as to their home, but it does not lord it over them.
Thus it may be called “The Great”

[system]

Who says you need permission to practice a religion! You don’t!! I have just decided I am simutaneously a member of all religions! Woo-hoo! Hooray for me!!!

[system]

Actually, philosophical Taoism and religious Taoism are common terms used to describe those two aspects of Taoist phenomena. You can find the distinction in lots of research into Taoism, and I don’t it is only a western division either …

[system]

Taoism to most people is the same way they will practice their “internal” arts, empty, without intent, their mind on some small insignificant measure on what is right under their nose and yet it should just all well be miles away, spout at the mouth about what they know and demonstrate little and pay careful detail to useless ascetics. This is weak and is the majority of so called Taoists.

True Taoism is a philosophy in its utmost and purest natural form is simplifying to attain a peaceful life and cultivating and attuning the inner self to gain better insight into the world around them.

WOW!!! And you thought it had to do with magical chi and wizards and yin and yang … all this and you can’t see what the essence of the Tao is. Natural, simplify, relax and enjoy.

Most of you know only what is called TAO CHIAO which was founded second century AD which had very, very little to do with true Taoist methods.
Borrowing idea from Buddhism and other philosophies that help create this artificial world containing Gods, Goddesses, Demons, magicians, and magic.

This helped create highly ritualistic Taoist mentality and tainted and obscured true Taoist beliefs that today’s followers perform empty and meaningless rituals who’s true purpose have been long forgotten.

So the choice is yours.. Either you follow a life of natural things and find that all thing change and there is a time and place for all things under heaven, or, You follow some odd empty shell of Taoist belief that resembles more a game of Dungeons and Dragons then anything useful.

-Kevin

The circle will always be, but you alone decides when it starts and where it ends.

[system]

Wow, this one deserves a break-down.

“Taoism to most people is the same way they will practice their “internal” arts, empty, without intent”

Though I know you are making a “this is wrong” statement, you are describing Zen Buddism, not Daoism.

“True Taoism is” No sentance that begins this way can ever end well. There is no “true Taoism”, that is part of the point of this thread. We can talk about what was ment by whom and what came from where. But like any religion, there is no true and false.

“Most of you know only what is called TAO CHIAO which was founded second century AD which had very, very little to do with true Taoist methods.”

IIRC, that would make it older than the Dao De Ching.

"Borrowing idea from Buddhism and other philosophies that help create this artificial world containing Gods, Goddesses, Demons, magicians, and magic. "

Buddhism has non of those things. That is to say, those things in Buddhism come from the same source as they do in Daoism. Buddah did not talk of gods and magic, but they were in the indegenous religions. Much as Mithras’ birthday came into Christian cannon, so did gods and demons come into both BUddhism and Daoism.

“This helped create highly ritualistic Taoist mentality and tainted and obscured true Taoist beliefs that today’s followers perform empty and meaningless rituals who’s true purpose have been long forgotten.”

Sounds like sour grapes.

“You follow some odd empty shell of Taoist belief that resembles more a game of Dungeons and Dragons then anything useful.”

I got more deep religious meaning in one DnD session than you have in your whole religion

Jerry

[system]

Humans always seek to define and categorize for their own vanity to feel they have an intellectual concept behind everything. Not only the physical but the spiritual, all religions are guilty to one degree or another to define what happens after the mortal shell cracks. It is due to the fear of the unknown. How can man begin to even chart what happens after we die, our brains are just too primitive to even begin to understand what will happen. Taoism seems not so much a belief system but a question mark upon what life and the universe is all about, although paradoxically this is still a definition and therefore cannot be the Tao. Every definition of the Tao is unsatisfactory because we cannot get outside the Tao to define it.

The first line of the Tao Te Ching sums it up perfectly:
“The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao”

[system]

We are talking about true Tao now?
(the Tao that can be talked about is not the eternal Tao)
Or the proper name for it ?
(the name that can be named is no the eternal name)

All things return to it as to their home, but it does not lord it over them.
Thus it may be called “The Great”

[system]

To InternalBoxer:

“Taoism seems not so much a belief system but a question mark upon what life and the universe is all about”. Respectfully, if taoism was just a question mark, there wouldn’t be any taoist writings enlightening us as to the true nature of heaven and earth. If you want to find question marks, try looking into buddhist cosmology. The buddha never discussed the universe as, simply said, those questions are not important and the answers are even less relevant. No, taoism is not a question mark but rather the best possible (“possible” because there cannot be a perfect explanation, it’s like trying to explain flying to a fish, you might try but the fish will always have but a vague idea of what you’re explaining…) explanation of the ultimate reality. I admit it might seem confusing at first. Maybe the reason you are confused by it is that contrary to most religion you may know of, they use negative definitions instead of positive definitions i.e. taoism won’t teach you what the tao is but rather what the tao is not.

“…although paradoxically this is still a definition and therefore cannot be the Tao. Every definition of the Tao is unsatisfactory because we cannot get outside the Tao to define it.”
And here follows you second misunderstanding. You are the first person in the discussion to introduce the idea of defining tao. Nobody made any references to defining tao before in the thread. Of course you are right in your assertion though. Nobody can define tao in sentences or try to analyze it and classify it. But you seem to be beside the point here. If I can direct you to the first messages posted, this is clearly a discussion regarding the religion of taoism, not the tao itself. If that was the case, I couldn’t agree with you more that this is a pointless discussion. If you re-read attentively the thread again, you will realize that this is more a discussion comparing the value of two ideas. One being a person born and raised in an area where the religion of taoism is practiced. The other one being a person who wasn’t born a “taoist” but read and studied taoist texts and tries to integrate them into their lives. The question being “who is more taoist”? Which, in the end, is still a fruitless, but entertaining, question.

ST

Surrounded by chaos, the true taoist laughs…

[system]

To Tsui, about the Tao of Pooh

You mentioned the Tao of Pooh as one of your 2 favorite or important books on taoism. I would agree that it is a good (even very good) introductory book to taoism in general, but if you are serious about your study of taoism, you should stick to the original texts and base your understanding on those. The tao of pooh is a work of vulgarization and I don’t think the author pretended it to be anything more. Similar to David Suzuki in the field of natural sciences, if a person is really serious about studying natural sciences, one should go read the books David Suzuki read, not the books he wrote (though those might be the ones that will spark your interest enough to go study its source).

It might be interesting to start a thread on what people consider as the core texts of taoism or their favorite books/essays on taoism.

ST

Surrounded by chaos, the true taoist laughs…

[system]

BigToad, I like your nickname

You seem to know pretty well what is taoism and I mostly share your views on it but I want to warn you and others of the dangers of “knowing”. When you “know” something, it blinds you and stops the evolution of your understanding. Because once you “know”, there is no more need to think about it or re-assess it because you “know” it, right? But “knowing” can ultimately lead to misunderstanding and error. Already, you “know” what “true” taoism is and expose “false” taoism as being filled with “magical chi and wizards and yin and yang”. Out of those 3 elements (chi, wizardry, yin/yang) you say do not belong to “true” taoism, I find that chi and yin/yang are very important concepts to “true” taoism. On top of that, chi has little to do with magic so why “magical chi”?
In your haste to expose the false, you have confused the true. And Tao Chiao IS an integral part of the evolution of the taoist movement. How can you say otherwise? What is part of then? Of course, one shoudn’t confuse the movement/religion with the tao. Christianity is not to be confused with God. Neither “true” Taoism nor “tao chiao” are the tao. But they are both part of it. Your understanding of taoism and the tao chiao followers’ understanding of tao are neither completely true of false but merely different aspects of tao. Tao is one. How can you divide tao into true and false. It includes both.

But I’m already talking about something I don’t know so I’ll stop here instead of spreading misunderstandings.

ST

P.S. Sorry to all for the mass posting (I posted 3 messages in a row…) My enthusiasm has taken the best of me

Surrounded by chaos, the true taoist laughs…